diplomacy, and i define public diplomacy as, where we are concerned, as americans having to sell or explain america to the rest of the world in a way that they get and understand. if we take that definition, one could argue, given your point, that mr. bush not cut out for public diplomacy, that at a point where we need to be engaged in the world right about now, given the mess that we are in, this is not the guy to put out in front as our diplomat in chief. >> i do not want to criticize the president, but i think this is very important, and i think he needs to convey the attitude to this administration that we need to be talking to the other countries. otherwise, we are not going to get to where we want to get. tavis, the real way to engage them is to talk about what their interests are, not what their positions are. sometimes, their positions are totally unacceptable to us, but if you understand what would be good for them, then you can get closer to home. tavis: what would be hypothetical be saying to a country like iran or syria, if the president were, to your point, to change on a dime and begi